← The Monocle Daily
The Monocle Daily
Geneva hosts talks on Ukraine-Russia and Iran. Plus: will Europe increase defence spending?
00:37:23
Loading summary
Transcript68 lines
- [00:00]
A
You're listening to the Monocle Daily. First broadcast on 17th February 2026 on Monocle Radio.
- [00:07]
B
Geneva takes its turn as the location of high stakes diplomacy. The passing of Jesse Jackson marks the end of a legacy of civil rights leaders. And AI is taking over Mass at the Vatican. Is nothing sacred? I'm Chris Chermack. The Monocle Daily starts. Hello, and welcome to the Monocle Daily. Coming to you from our studios here at Midori House in London. I'm Chris Chermack. My guests Alex von Tonzelman and David Brennan will discuss the day's big stories. And we'll hear from the CEO of Capa, that maker of football shirts that's also sponsoring the Americans at the Olympics. Stay tuned. All that and more coming up right here on the Monocle Daily. This is the Monocle Daily. I'm Chris Chermak and I'm joined today by Alex Von Tunzelman, historian, author and screenwriter, and David Brennan, reporter at ABC News. Good to have you both. Hello.
- [01:13]
A
Hello. Good to be here.
- [01:15]
B
We're gonna start with some Olympics chat because it is not among our topics, although we are going to hear from our Monocle in Milan show at the end of this. David, you've been watching. What struck you so far?
- [01:27]
C
I've been struck by our brave British athletes striving to come in 10th, 12th, 14th. Very proud of them.
- [01:34]
B
How could you say that? I mean, they get their first, what was it, the first gold medal on the snow Astood it Sunday. I mean, that was quite a big thing for the Brits.
- [01:45]
C
I actually did watch that live and I was quite proud. But you know, you gotta be a bit downbeat. It's the British way. But no, it's been great fun.
- [01:52]
B
I see three golds and you're like, no downbeat, the British. Let's just scale it down more next year, next time. Alex, you were telling me you haven't quite been watching. But nonetheless, in our opening chat to this, you realize just how much you have actually been following all the drama.
- [02:07]
A
Chris, it's just amazing. I love how much drama there is around. And I think it's partly because the Winter Olympics seems to have, you know, a sort of tangibly higher level of peril than the Summer Olympics, you know, I mean, like the biathlon, that's just crazy. Like, okay, like do a load of cross country skiing now. We're giving you a gun, see what happens. And I mean, the athletes all seem to have been, you know, there was the Norwegian guy that of course you spoke about last week. You know, on the show who, you know, tried to get back together with.
- [02:32]
B
His girlfriend while admitting to cheating.
- [02:35]
A
I mean, crazy stuff happening, you know, and, I mean, all sorts of things, unmentionable genital stories that we don't want to horrify anyone with at tea time. I mean, all sorts of kind of things going on. Just seems like, you know, I thought I'd kind of be missing out on a lot of it, and actually, I really enjoy the Winter Olympics, so that's not intentional. I was just away last week and. And then I realized, actually, no, I've seen loads of it because it's just following all the scandals, headlines all the time. So, yeah, extraordinary stuff, David, given how.
- [03:03]
B
Well Britain normally does in the curling. Quick hot take from you on that before we continue, because there's been the cheating scandal, curling as well. F bombs and everything.
- [03:13]
C
My hot take is that I don't enjoy curling and I do not like how the BBC has made me watch this much curling. So I'm glad there's been some cheating because it spiced up the curling a bit.
- [03:23]
B
It definitely spiced up the curling. Well, we're going to start with a busy day of diplomacy as two of the world's conflicts, one very much active, the other on the brink of becoming active, are meeting together in the same Swiss city of Geneva. The US negotiators, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, began the day talking about how to avoid a conflict with Iran and ended the day with how to stop conflicts between Ukraine and Russia. Ongoing conflict, rather. Alex, this feels quite rare that there would be these two negotiations of this magnitude in one place at the same time.
- [04:01]
A
I know, it feels like a weird two for one to go for, doesn't it? Apart from, I mean, you know, we were wondering, I think, whether, you know, it's just the simple number of air miles that all of these diplomats are clocking up with. You know, all these different security, Security conferences and government conferences, Davos, all this stuff that's been happening over the last few months, and maybe they're just, you know, trying to stack them up for some sort of efficiency. And I. I think it feels. I mean, it certainly feels, and I'm sorry to sound a kind of negative note, that these are basically two negotiations that are quite unlikely to get anywhere in a particularly positive way. Of course, like, lots of noises happen because, oh, there's some wonderful constructive talks, obviously, and then they just restate their positions that they're not going to do anything or move at all. So perhaps that's the thing, just get it done. Because what's really going to. Is this just a talking shop fundamentally. And because realistically we are still in a position where Vladimir Putin doesn't want to end the war in Ukraine. And I don't think the Iranians have any real intention of backing down over their nuclear program either. So.
- [05:06]
B
Not necessarily backing down. But, David, I mean, what's your take on this? Are you a little more optimistic on one of these than the other? It certainly feels like the US Iran crisis, at least is one that's coming to a point where something needs to happen now or else we go into an active conflict.
- [05:26]
C
It does feel like something's coming, maybe not something good. While these talks have been going on, we've seen evidence of public and non public evidence of U.S. air and naval power amassing in the region. Of course, there's been very busy backchannel talks between the U.S. its regional allies, countries like Saudi reportedly pushing them not to strike Iran. The Iranian foreign minister had some relatively positive words after this first round of talks this morning. He said, quote, the path for a deal has started. I don't know how hopeful to be with that. I mean, the language of the Trump administration started.
- [06:02]
B
Where will it end?
- [06:03]
C
The language of the Trump administration is very much, you know, deals and progress on deals, and there are deals to be done and we're going to make a deal. I don't know whether he's just trying to appeal to them and keep these negotiations going or if maybe there was some progress. They weren't very long talks. They didn't go on for very long. As we've already said, Kushner and Wyckoff had another appointment about three miles away. Not to be a cynic, but I don't believe the green credentials are the driving force behind that decision to have them both in Geneva. But, yeah, at the moment it seems unclear whether Iran is willing to bend on these American demands, which, let's not forget, are pretty much the same as they were in the first Trump term. No enrichment, no ballistic missiles, no support of regional proxies. Three pillars that for Iran are very, very important for the regime's security.
- [06:52]
B
Alex, what do you make of the fact even that we're having these talks at the same time, and particularly U. S Iran being the thing that is happening now? It's almost as if Donald Trump himself has grown a bit tired of Russia and Ukraine and he had to add something else to his plate.
- [07:09]
A
Yeah, I mean, maybe something where, I suppose, you know, it feels like Ukraine and Russia is sort of so, you know, kind of in such a pit of nothing happening that perhaps he's hoping for like at least one win out of these two. And I would certainly agree that. I think it's more likely that something would come of talks with Iran. And but of course, one of the reasons that it's more likely is that the Americans could say, okay, we're not going to launch a war. Then, you know, the Americans could take a decision not to do something, for instance, even if, and you know, it did sound, I mean, the Iranians are standing pretty strong on all of those three pillars that they've mentioned, you know, and I think particularly the enrichment of uranium. And of course, you know, you've got to remember that the Iranians, of course, have just faced a very, very serious uprising, which of course they put down with, as far as we can tell, unimaginable levels of brutality. They probably aren't feeling in a particularly compromising position. They're probably feeling pretty vulnerable and like they need to hold onto those pillars of what they see as stability for themselves.
- [08:11]
B
David, when it comes to the Ukraine, Russia talks that we're seeing as well, even if we are, from the sounds of it, not particularly optimistic of a breakthrough at this point, is it nonetheless significant that at least these two are meeting? That is something that we might not have imagined even a couple of months ago.
- [08:30]
C
Yeah. This is a necessary step on the path to an eventual peace deal or cessation of hostilities. Lots of numbers are being thrown around about how close we are. We aren't. Zelenskyy has said we're 95% of the way there. That's quite encouraging. Perhaps that's more for Trump's ears than for US because that 5%, from what we can tell, are the most intractable, most controversial elements of this. There is no indication that the Russians are ready to soften their demands. There is little indication that Trump is willing to app more leverage on the Russians, despite having threatened to do so. For most Ukrainians that I speak with, whether kind of normal Ukrainian soldiers, politicians, civil society figures, most people see Putin as the ultimate obstacle in any long term deal. It's hard to see how this ends while he is still in power, which in this case effectively means while he's still alive. He's made very clear what he thinks of Ukraine, what he thinks of its status as a real country, and he seems to have mortgaged his legacy and his regime on the success of this war. So when you're talking about big currents like that, it's hard to see how negotiations over an economic zone in the Donbas will move the needle.
- [09:46]
B
Is there something, Alex, other than Vladimir Putin leaving power, that you could imagine ending this conflict in some way, shape or form? I mean, generally, the only other way a conflict ends, I guess, is when both scientists grow so tired of it and have lost so much that they feel they need to come to the table. I mean, Russia has lost a tremendous amount more in terms of soldiers than Ukraine has, and yet doesn't feel like we've reached that point yet.
- [10:15]
A
Do something crazy. I think I saw someone say it's a Vietnam every year. I mean, kind of crazy numbers of soldiers. But yeah, I mean, you know, well, of course. Can you imagine things? Well, I mean, how crazy do you want to get? Alien invasion? I mean, you know, things could stop, theoretically, the war. But I'm afraid I tend to agree that I think Putin has embedded this so deeply in himself that I don't really see a way of him backing. I don't think he wants to back down. I don't think there's any gain for him in backing down or backing off this whatsoever, I'm afraid. I was speaking recently to a Russian, exiled Russian security specialist in the UK who, you know, I asked him actually kind of a similar question about what could end the war. And he sighed and said, look, in this respect, the great friend of humanity is a heart attack or a stroke. And I. That is probably more or less what we're talking about is unless Vladimir Putin exits the scene in some way or other, I'm afraid. I wish I could bring some optimism at this point, but I'm not entirely sure I can.
- [11:21]
B
Well, let's move to Europe, which is not particularly present in these talks, despite them being in Geneva. But one of the reasons why might be because in this age of great power conflicts, while the United States spends oodles of money on defense, the recriminations in Western Europe over who is spending what on defense were kicked into a higher gear this week. Germany's Foreign Minister, Johann Vaderful said France needs to spend more if Europe is to stand on its own two feet. While everyone is blaming the UK at the moment for pledging money and then not spending it. David, I mean, ambition is one thing, and we've had ambitions in Europe for all of these years, frankly, since the war in Ukraine, the full scale invasion of Ukraine began. But are Western governments at this point finding that, you know, promising money is one thing, getting it out the door is quite another?
- [12:14]
C
I think absolutely. And I think the as you say, we've been talking about this for years, this need for European nations to spend more. The answer they always gave was, we need to build public support for this, because if you spend money here, you have to take money from somewhere else. It seems that that public support has largely been built, or they feel it's been built, but now the actual implementation is a lot more difficult. All of this global upheaval has come at a difficult time for European nations who are all struggling with, you know, a myriad of economic problems and strains. It's a hard time to say we need to put 20 billion pounds, for example, extra into the defence budget when we are struggling to provide basic services, when the. The leader and his party are struggling in the polls anyway, the. We shouldn't lose sight of, you know, what has been accomplished so far already. European nations have been actively spending a lot more spending money, weapons that are now going directly to Ukraine through the U.S. program that they set up because they didn't want to, or Trump didn't want to contribute them anymore without payment. But as you've sort of hinted at there, there's a long way to go. We have these lofty targets of GDP spending that were agreed at the recent NATO summit. That's 3.5% in defence and 1.5% of GDP in defence adjacent expenditure. There's been some controversy around that as well. I can't remember which nation it was, but one nation was criticised for renovating its barracks somewhere and trying to claim that as part of its NATO spending commitment, and the other nations were like, come on. So, like, there's a lot of. A lot of loopholes to be exploited, as you said. Lots of recriminations between countries who often do clash on defence spending related issues. Whether that's, you know, we're spending and you're not spending, or we don't want to spend more. Why are you pressing us to spend more? Or you're spending on the wrong thing? We want you to spend on our stuff and not on stuff from the UK or the us, for example. There's lots of tension, so many tensions and dimensions.
- [14:12]
B
I mean, Alex, when David talks there about kind of getting the public on board. The first round of that was the war in Ukraine, if you will, getting the public on board. The next round of that probably has been Donald Trump over the last year. Do you get the sense that Europe recognizes genuinely that it might be on its own at this point? Is that something that is reaching the public as well as the governments, or are we kind of all quietly Hoping we can still rely on that big spender over on the side of the.
- [14:44]
A
I think light is somewhat piercing the gloom on that one. Actually. I have to say I think people are becoming much more certainly politicians. And actually I think also, I mean, I just, you know, the talk generally, I think people are realizing just how potentially unreliable America could turn out to be as an ally. And I think particularly as a question of, you know, for instance, you know, not only is it the defense spending, but it's the Europe has to become self sufficient in manufacturing weapons, you know, because what if you can't buy them at all? And like these are sort of scenarios that would have seemed completely unthinkable, not even worth thinking 10 years ago. Well, now they are less unthinkable and you know, yes, maybe still unlikely to go that far, but not impossible. And so actually I do think that in fact there is, there's a shift certainly underway. And I agree those two things I think have begun to shift public opinion. But the thing is about public opinion, of course you can say, should we spend more money on defence? And everyone goes, yes. And then you say, how about your grandma not getting a hip operation? And they say, no, no, no, not like that. So I mean, the trade offs are not very obvious, I think, to ordinary people a lot of the time. The fact that, as David said that, you know, you need then to reduce spending on other things at a time when people already feel like that spending is very insufficient in a lot of European countries, certainly in the uk, but actually not only the uk in a lot of European countries, you know, all of which you've got people struggling with a cost of living CR crisis. You've had lots of inflation, you've had all sorts of issues that people are still coping with. And so I think, you know, it's one thing that I think there certainly is probably much more public awareness and support for defence spending. What there isn't is necessarily the adjustment that's required to actually make that, you know, political and economic choice.
- [16:29]
B
David, a quick word on the UK itself. Just curious if you have impressions of this with, with Keir Starmer sort of admitting after Munich that they have to go faster as his line was in raising military spending. Are we sensing a change here? Because the UK has come under quite a bit of criticism this last week. Even defense companies are saying we've been promised money, we're not getting it.
- [16:53]
C
Yeah, I think Starmer's rhetorically or is recently been very strong on this when he's saying we need to go faster and spend more. I would have thought that was his job to get that going. But Starmer also has certain constraints on him. There's been lots of reporting around his efforts to get the UK into the Security Action for Europe fund, which is said to be worth some 150 billion euros.
- [17:21]
B
Ah, yes, the whole other fight that's going on where the UK like let us in.
- [17:25]
C
Exactly. And the French are saying, spend European money, you made your choice. You can't come in and cannibalize our military industrial sector. So that's kind of going back to those inter alliance tensions we're talking about. But I do think, you know, Starmer's repeated mentions of this do show that it is important to the Labour government. We saw it was important to the Conservative government, at least in theory, when they were still in office. They were, to their credit, always quite strong on the Ukraine issue. So I do think there does seem to be bipartisan agreement in the UK of the need for this in terms of how that gets implemented and who pays for it. But we'll see.
- [18:03]
B
Alex, just a final word on this sort of German French spat that I was mentioning as well, because I do find this interesting also, having covered Germany for a while, Germany's role is fascinating because of course, with the history in the past, they are the ones who have made the more dramatic shift probably in the last few years of having to say we are going to spend more money. The famous Zeitenwende speech of Olaf Scholz back in the day. Are they kind of now turning the tables almost and saying, France, come on, you haven't had as much expected of you?
- [18:37]
A
Well, yeah, we've done it. I mean, it's funny, isn't it? You can look at the graphs of who's increased their spending and look at a map and you'll notice that Poland very, very close to Russia has actually really ramped up. I mean, astonishingly ramped up its spending very dramatically. Germany, quite close to Russia, in some cases very close, you know, again has gone up a lot and you then get further and further away and it seems perhaps a little less pressing. And I think obviously at one level this is completely unsurprising, but also it is part of the story, I think, that those countries that feel that they're on the periphery, you know, and I think Poland feels extremely bullish, as far as I can tell, about, you know, the prospects, you know, slightly a feeling of come and have a go if you think you're hard enough towards the Russians. But you know, and obviously of course, you see it from the Baltic countries and so on. There's a great deal of anxiety about this. I think the threat does feel less real the further west you get, probably. And so there is, of course, an element of this, but it is a collective responsibility. And you know what? Like if that threat did come closer, that would get real quite fast. And that's obviously the point. So look, I think there is going to be this kind of back and forth and a bit of shaming going on and a bit of name calling going on, a bit of bantering going on, because ultimately it is a situation where somehow the countries that are right in the path of potential threat are going to have to convince the rest in the alliance that we're all in this together.
- [20:11]
B
Well, let's turn to the United States now, where an icon of the civil rights era, really the last of an era that goes back to Martin Luther King Jr. We're talking about the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who passed away this morning at the age of 84. David, you were writing about this as it happened early on this morning. I was doing the same here, kind of preparing to talk about it on our afternoon radio show, the Briefing. What struck you about the Reverend Jesse Jackson as you were sort of doing your research into his life? Was there anything sort of that you didn't know that struck you?
- [20:49]
C
Well, I was writing and learning at the same time because his story is, you know, I know the kind of broad strokes of it, but the details, not something that I would was super familiar with. But, you know, his life story is amazing and kind of reflective of the changes that we've seen in, in American politics in the 20th century. You know, he was this was something I learned today. Sorry, I'm reading this off as if I was an expert, but I've written it down. He was born to an unwed teenage mother in South Carolina during the Jim Crow era, then went on from that to become a civil rights icon, of course, had two runs for presidency. That really captured the nation's imagination, that that kind of meteoric rise combined with so much hardship and persecution. It's kind of the best and the worst of America in the 20th century. And I think, as you said, one of the last, if not the last kind of connection to some of those historic figures who unfortunately didn't live for as long as he did. And it's one of those moments that kind of stops and makes you think and feel the history of that.
- [21:49]
B
Well, speaking of the history, Alex, one thing that struck me in my research that I. I didn't know was that Barack Obama credits hearing Jesse Jackson back at Columbia University in 1984, when he was running the first time for president, with making him realize that he could one day won for president, that this could be a possibility. He ran for president twice. What do you make of his influence, really, in the US he was the first, really, not only the civil rights era, but the first then black African American to run for president to really make a go of it.
- [22:28]
A
Oh, I think that's unfair on Shirley Chisholm. Let's. Let's say Shirley Chisholm was a very, very serious candidate for president and an amazing woman. But absolutely. No, you're certainly right though, that he did. Jesse Jackson is just a hugely outsized, outstanding influence on that culture. And he came, let's remember, he came pretty close to the nomination. I mean, he came second to Michael Dukakis in 1988. And who knows, I mean, Dukakis nowhere. I mean, who knows what could have happened if you'd had someone, in my opinion, far more inspiring, although admittedly, you know, divisive, of course, because this was america in the 80s, you know, someone like Jesse Jackson at the head of that Democratic presidential campaign as the candidate. I mean, who knows what would have happened? It's a fascinating kind of counterfactual historical question, but no, an absolutely huge influence and I think also an incredibly good communicator and incredibly charismatic. I mean, it's funny, we were watching earlier because, you know that he was, for instance, once on Sesame street, you know, the children's television program, and it was a massive, massive influence. He read out this poem, I Am Somebody. He got these children to kind of call and response along with him. And then you had black families across America learning that poem and repeating it. And it became this real kind of influential moment. You know, in the days long before the Internet when we. When viral kind of sensations had to be passed, you know, from mouth to mouth and hand to hand rather than online, it very much became one of those. And, you know, I think he was a really, really extraordinary figure and spanning those generations. I mean, he was a huge figure during my childhood. And then, you know, when you look back and you're like, oh, my gosh, there he is as a young man with Dr. King. And you realise actually how many generations he went through and, you know, was such a leading figure in so many of them.
- [24:15]
B
Well, just sticking with you, Alex, on that, I mean, what do you make of just the fact that I think, as I said at the outset Jesse Jackson. The passing of Jesse Jackson represents kind of this end of an era. He was that figure who was there with Martin Luther King, Jr. When he was assassinated.
- [24:32]
A
Absolutely. And of course, you know, Reverend Jackson was 84 when he died this morning. And, you know, so just by process of elimination, aside from the fact that obviously a lot of civil rights leaders died well before their time, whether they were assassinated or, you know, unpleasant things happened, there aren't many left of that generation because that is a great age to have reached. And of course, he's been very unwell in the last few years as well. He publicly declared he had a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease. And, you know, he was, I think, on stage at the Democratic National Convention, I think, in 2024, I think. But, you know, obviously his health has taken a severe toll and he couldn't appear in such a public way. And so you're absolutely right that we are now seeing that generation move into the history book. And of course, as I say, some well before their time, but some, you know, now you're not going to see that many more figures of that stature. No.
- [25:32]
B
David, just a quick one on that. Are there any other figures that you see at this point as the civil rights movement kind of moves into this current era? What are your reflections on that? Or is it more about sort of Black Lives Matter? We're seeing more disparate movement now, I suppose.
- [25:48]
C
Yeah, I think that's an interesting way to look at it, that the movements are maybe more disparate, but we have seen how they can catch national and international attention and following very, very quickly. And with the current political situation in the US There's a lot of turmoil, a lot of controversial politics happening from the right. And the backlash to that from the left, I think, is going to produce some really interesting people who may well be, you know, guiding and influencing these discussions for a long time to come. In addition to those who are already there, you know, the younger generation of Congress, your AOCs and the like.
- [26:29]
B
Well, finally for our panel, two news that the Vatican is entering the age of artificial intelligence by offering AI assisted translations of Mass into 60 languages. The service is launching next week at St Peter's Basilica, which is marking the fourth centenary of its dedication. Alex, as a screenwriter, I have to say there's something very Star Trek y about this. This is what struck me. We've entered this age of sort of as live translation.
- [27:01]
A
I know. And I mean. And at the Vatican, well, you know, they are moving with the times. Although it's been interesting because Actually, the Pope, the present Pope, Leo xiv, has been, you know, slightly unhappy about AI. I mean, he said just back in May, he said that it poses challenges to defending human dignity, justice and labor, which actually is absolutely true, I think. But it's interesting now to see them nonetheless embrace this technology. I have to say, the first thing I thought, which certainly the articles I read slightly skimmed over, was, you know, that AI gets things wrong the whole time, right? I mean, so slightly important within the context of Catholic doctrine, how wrong is it going to get it? What kind of mistranslation could we have here? Certainly seems, seems like, I mean, not to say that, of course, human translators might also make mistakes, but be quite interesting to see what it comes out with, wouldn't it?
- [27:51]
B
That was absolutely my thought as well, David. I have to say I understand that the makers of the software behind this Lara admit to errors, but say they've made significant steps forward in reducing them. But, I mean, are we buying that? I mean, how bad it is if you, how bad is it if you even make just one mistake in mass?
- [28:10]
C
Well, anyone, as you're saying, anyone who's used an AI assisted search engine knows that sometimes AI likes to fill in gaps when it doesn't have. So I think this is either a really good idea or a really bad idea.
- [28:21]
B
Alex, are we looking forward generally, though, to this age of speaking to people across the globe with just the touch of a button and you can just translate whatever you want?
- [28:31]
A
Well, I think it very much depends on how accurate it is. I mean, in many ways it's a wonderful idea, of course, to have kind of simultaneous translation, and that kind of ease of communication could be absolutely magical, as long as it's correct.
- [28:47]
B
Have you had any experiences of this, David, I have to ask at this point, have you incorporated any of these, whether it's translations or other things into your life from AI and found it wanting or productive?
- [28:59]
C
Well, I mean, I will admit that as someone who mainly reports on international political things, being able to instantly translate public statements and recorded videos and audio into other languages is pretty great. I'm assuming that the translations are correct.
- [29:18]
B
I hope you check it somewhere else as well before you kind of go on reporting. Two sources, Alex von Tunzelman and David Brennan, thank you for joining us today. Finally on the program, the Winter Olympics are well underway in Milan. As we spoke about. Monocle has been there on the ground throughout, broadcasting from the Allianz Winter Sky Lounge with a special show called Monocle Milan. A Monocle in Milan, rather. And for today, the famous logo of Kappa, the silhouette of two figures sitting back to back, has graced some of the most stylish shirts in the history of European football. Capa is also a presence at the Winter Olympics, adorning the skiers and snowboarders of Team usa. Well, earlier this morning, Monaco's contributing editor and normal host of this show, Andrew Muller, caught up with Lorenzo Boglioni, CEO of CAPA's parent company, Basic Net, and started by asking him about whether vintage Kappa football shirts are a selling point to bring in customers from other sports.
- [30:19]
D
Yes, absolutely. I still. I still think we live on the memories of those epic times. Of course, Milan was very important and relevant day, but Barcelona, Juventus, Ajax, all of the best teams in the world work up at a certain point.
- [30:40]
B
Point.
- [30:40]
D
And we are proud that almost all of them won amazing trophies wearing our jerseys.
- [30:47]
E
But if we go back over the. From that period to this, does it strike you that there is an overarching philosophy, not just to Capa, but to Basic Net in total, about that you apply to your designs?
- [31:00]
D
Yeah, absolutely. We always try to innovate and be disruptive with the products we supply to our athletes. Even today, I think the suits of the American skiers stand out pretty loud. The stars, the colors. We really believe it is important to find a way to stand out. We're not the biggest brand, we're not the most powerful, but we can innovate. And that is the thing that excites us the most.
- [31:29]
E
Well, how did that relationship come about with Team usa? Because obviously that's a huge customer to have landed. And as you say, there are many more obvious, bigger ones that they could have gone to. So what was your pitch?
- [31:43]
D
Well, the pitch. The pitch was that sometimes in life you need to be lucky. And in that moment, we were, let's say, moving out a troubled relationship with the Italian Ski Federation. They were moving out of a troubled, let's say, relationship with an American brand. And it just happened to be the right moment for both. We made a big effort because, of course, it's a big commitment for a company like ours. But, you know, we knew the Olympics were coming to Milano and Cortina, and we. We just said, you know, let's go for it. And unfortunately, we had an amazing four years. The Olympic Games have not probably been as successful as we're hoped for the Americans. We still have the hope in Michaela Shifrin for tomorrow, I think. But. But again, unfortunately, Lindsey had a very terrible accident. And, you know, we really hope for a speedy recovery, but, you Know, just having her wear the suit and being around was, was amazing.
- [32:52]
E
But when you have something like an outfit for Team usa, you were talking about being disruptive. How disruptive are you able to get though? Because you're designing an Olympic outfit for the United States. So, you know, it's going to be red, white and blue. There are going to be stars and there are probably going to be stripes. How much fun can you actually have with that look?
- [33:16]
D
You know, our job is, you know, could look simple from outside. At the end, you have a T shirt, you have a suit. It's always made in the same material, more or less. As I said, stripes, blue, red, white. But then you go back and you go around and you see the other suits and you see that you can be innovative and you can be disruptive. If you look at the suits of the past for the usa, they were not like that. So I think again, you have to be sometimes brave. There's always a lot of different parts, you know, commenting and wanting to give their opinion. At the end, you have to go straight. And we had our inspiration. We wanted the stars to be like, they are so long on the legs and the sleeves and not, you know, in the typical shape of the American flag. And honestly, the reactions have been tremendous. We, we had a lot of good, good comments about it.
- [34:13]
E
How much freedom were you given though? Was there a lot of back and forth forth with Team usa or did you just come to them with your first idea and they said, yeah, that's great, let's do it.
- [34:22]
D
No, it's never our style to just impose. It's always a job we like to do together. We share several different options. We say, you know, which one we like the most and then, you know, we, we compromise where there is a need for compromise. But, you know, generally we like to work with the teams and we like the teams and the athletes to feel comfortable in their gear. We just don't want to impose straight up.
- [34:50]
E
And how important is it as well, though, to. I mean, imposed is probably more clearly the wrong word, but to I guess, lend an, an amount of the capa essence to any project you work on? Because for all that you were talking about it being a relatively small and disruptive brand, it has now been going long enough with enough profile that it is also a legacy brand. There's a balance, there, isn't there?
- [35:14]
D
Yeah, but the legacy is to be different. The legacy that we need to stand up for is to be different and disruptive. So, you know, that's what we like to do. And, and we will continue doing it, even if now and again we might piss off somebody.
- [35:30]
E
I mean, I do have to ask you if yourself, looking back over that extraordinary legacy in particular of European football shirts, if you have a particular favorite. And when I ask you that question, I am kind of challenging you with 47 floors above Milan, with the view of the San Siro, and I know you're it's a Turin based company, but are you really going to stand there and say it was the Juventus shirts your favorite?
- [35:56]
D
No. I think I have an easier answer. I think the Italian national team jersey of 22,000, 2002 at the World cup in Korea and Japan was our masterpiece. We went really bold. We decided to change the material, the fabric and the feet of the jersey. We took the logo off the chest and put it on the shoulder to leave the chest only for the Italian Scudetto. So, so that was the cleanest, sleekest, most technologic jersey when everybody was going in a completely different direction. And after that everybody started following us. So I think it's an easy answer. The Italian national team, especially during the Olympics, I think it's good.
- [36:44]
B
Lorenzo Boglioni, CEO of CAPA's parent company BasicNet, there, speaking with Andrew Muller. Monocle in Milan is live again tomorrow at 9am London, 10am in Milan. That's all the time we have for this edition of the Monocle Daily. A big thanks to my panelists, David Brennan and Alex von Tunzelman. Today's show was produced by Carlotta Rubello, researched by Anneliese Maynard, and our sound engineer was Elliot Greenfield. I'm Chris Chermack here in London. The Monocle Daily is back at the same time tomorrow. Goodbye and thanks for listen.